Analysis comment

FT confirms what SKWAWKBOX said weeks ago: UK deaths DOUBLE govt’s official total

Financial Times analysis arrives at same conclusion: Tory government is hiding half the deaths its policies have caused

The SKWAWKBOX has been warning for weeks that the number of deaths caused by the government’s failures and political choices was at least double the figure admitted in each official daily update.

It was attacked frequently for supposed exaggeration, scaremongering and fake news.

But now the Financial Times has caught up – and its own analysis reflects the same conclusion: the Tories are misleading the public about the consequences of their behaviour and decisions and effectively hiding half of the deaths they are causing.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. They didn’t tell the truth of the deaths of people who tried to claim benefits how on earth would you think they tell the truth now

      1. You’re right there. They certainly aren’t spin doctors for the Government.

  2. I’d have thought that the one thing Skwawkbox might be is sceptical about the mainstream media – it isn’t something you turn on and off depending on when it suits your immediate agenda – or not.

    The FT figures are speculation, not analysis based on firm data. We’ll need some time and at least a month for an interim assessment) in order to see what the situation actually is and to seperate out Covid-19 from other factors with some clarity.

    I see no point in reinforcing the Tories’ ‘Blind Panic’ agenda without good evidence. Which we haven’t got – it’s all guesswork.

    1. “I see no point in reinforcing the Tories’ ‘Blind Panic’ agenda without good evidence. Which we haven’t got – it’s all guesswork.”

      I am with you on this RH, some sources say all or many deaths are being put down as Covid deaths, others claim underestimates… one thing is certain if scientists aren’t able to have reliable and accurate data then a true picture will never emerge and surely we know how all Govs love to use fear and crisis to grab more powers. I cannot believe the so called left is cheering on the Gov power grab and reduction of rights for all it is worth. There are few lone voices asking questions and I do not mean that creep Morgan who has become the darling of some sections of the ‘left’.

      Dr. Ionnides is doing his own studies. It’s US but the same virus and disease.

      OffGuardian is one of the few sites gathering facts and figures from scientists you wont hear or read in propaganda media and for me has become a place of sanity.

      I wont apologise for not wanting Gov/police/courts/doctors to have powers that will likely not be fully rolled back if it is ever deemed safe to come out of so called lockdown and when that happens will Gov work out the cost in lives, health, increased unemployment, poverty and economy due to lockdown. Monopolists must be having wet dreams every night of lockdown as more and more SMEs go bust, banksters and authoritarians loving push to cashless society- the ultimate tool of control.

      1. You’re right, Maria. I question what I read on the OffGuardian site, as well (it has a mixture of really good stuff with off-the-wall-conspiracy. Which is the point : assess stuff as well as you can and look around.

        I certainly won’t take for granted something posted on Skwawkbox that originated in the non-science-based FT just because it superficially dishes the Tories (although, in actual fact, it reinforces the government strategy).

        The main characteristic of this epidemic (apart from prior government incompetence) is the uncertainty of data at this point, not the certainty of doom, and when I hear a government satrap in the form of th CMO promising endless ‘social distancing’, I’m asking questions big time and reaching for rationality and a shield of *justified* suspicion.

        Skwakkbox is currently piddling about in the shallows of the possible suspicious real agendas that are around.

      2. I’ll just leave this here, of course it is (just) two Doctors talking about the Cov-19 data they have collected and their conclusions as well as subjects they have studied for years.

        I am not able to clearly hear all the questions but it’s clear those asking questions are having trouble understanding what is being said as it differs from what is in the media.

      3. The video is 1 hour long but if anyone is actually interested the 101 basics of our immune systems are approx @ 18:00 and a much needed reminder for all…

    2. @RH , then do you not doubt that this Govt is lying ? or are you content to believe the fiddled low death rate figure you are fed by HM Govt ?
      You know the ones which for some unknown and utterly random reason that those who are dead cannot be counted as dead as a simple number until the next of kin gives permission to release that information.
      What SB is doing is pointing to the growing evidence that you are being lied to yet again.
      Trying to ascertain the truth is not blind panic , it’s seeking the truth .

      1. Let’s turn your question round, rob. Do you not doubt that the ONS is lying?

        I don’t take heed of the government or their PR in the press – or the BBC daily propaganda exercise. I try to tease out the actual data and then look at the wider range of expert opinion (of which there is a lot that doesn’t support the Corporal Jones reaction.

        The ‘Blind Panic’ label comes from the slanted narrative that comes from that PR operation – which is very smilar to the ‘antisemitism’ narrative infection that took hold of the press.

        The ‘fiddled figures’ scenario is based on pure hot air. Since when did the FT become the authority above all others just because it suits the confirmation bias?

  3. FT is usually a good source, unlike some others where you wonder what the editor actually does all day bearing in mind some of the error laden garbage that is published.

  4. OK, RH, if you say so, we’ll wait for the statisticians to form a consensus before calling the doctor.
    You’ve probably just got a bit of ‘flu anyway. Here, have a Strepsil.

    1. Well, David – at least it hasn’t infected the balance of my reason, and the understanding of numbers – which at this time don’t show an overall totally exceptional level of mortality across the board.

      … with no Strepsils – tho’ no doubt some panic-bashers will be touting it as a cure for the virus.

      To be clear and serious :

      I am not saying that there is no danger to this virus. I am just noting that, as yet, it has not surpassed the cumulative mortality in years of notable epidemics, when the issue didn’t even reach the headlines. I am in the high vulnerability group, so have no reason to be casual about the threat of this virus – or the flu’. The main difference is, of course, that there isn’t a vaccine, which undoubtedly poses a problem – although most flu’ vaccines don’t give 100% protection.

      The numbers won’t be crunched for quite a time – and nor will a vaccine appear any time soon. The best bet is the development of treatments for the rare serious cases.

      Against this lockdown policy for a indeterminate threat has to be balanced the social and psychological consequences of continuing the destruction of social life – not least in terms of mortality. Quite a number of epidemiologists are expressing concerns in terms of the health effects of continuing the policy for too long. The CMO gaily promoting the policy until the end of the year is just ducking issues.

      Meanwhile ‘the statisticians’ will speculate with projection models – which have a very poor record of prediction, and will never reach consensus on Mystic Mog stuff (Imperial College – which has provided the most influential projection models has a particularly poor record). But the role of statistical analysis with *real* data is critical in teasing out important variables etc.

      So the question remains ‘What to do?” – if lockdown can’t be sustained on both practical and social/psychological grounds. What is ‘reasonable social distancing’? And is that sustainable beyond a certain point?

      All those questions require accurate numbers in assessing competing risks. Back to the statisticians – who all agree, whether epidemiologists or otherwise, that the main problem at the moment is the incompleteness of good information. Bluntly, the risk of death will have to be assessed in numbers – and a choice made of the best way forward, both at an individual level and as a society. There’s no cost-free option.

      My current concern that you object to is just about the obvious exclusion of different perspective from the MSM headlines in favour of a magnified sense of risk….. and where that then takes us.

      1. As a rider to all this and my related concerns, I note that the Groan is reporting that :

        “Politicians have warned that the government is considering a “blanket ban” to prevent older people leaving their homes during the coronavirus crisis.”

        To which there is a brief two-word retort in a democratic society. The first word begins with ‘f’ and the second with ‘o’.

        .. which doesn’t imply a disregard for *sensible* and proportionate precautions – which are self-reinforcing, anyway.

  5. The only thing of some of above about deaths is has I found with my mother death they taken her from a clean house into a affected ward and cause of death that they were putting on death certificate was virus but in the process of having a postmortem on her but bloods were taken and proved she didn’t have this virus but yes they putting alot of deaths has pop one so you can argue all day about these figures but the truth from the Tories I wonder hmmm

    1. I’m sorry that you’ve lost your mother, Jeffrey. You have highlighted a particular problem with the figures relating to Covid-19, and I have sometimes wondered how my mother’s death would have been recorded had she died at this particular time.

      As to the Tories – I wouldn’t trust any of their narrative and motivation – that is actually my point.

      I would, however, trust the ONS – which isn’t the same thing (nor the same thing as figures being beyond question) : there are too many questioning professionals around for them to get away with falsification, even if they wanted to do it.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: